Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

Robert S <roberts218e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 18 Jul, 20:08, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> To them?  In most cases, probably so.  But unless they have thrown out
>> our models of the universe, not to the degree that 300 year-old data
>> from the pre-dawn of modern science.
>
>Pre-dawn. Galileo. Kepler. Newton.

Yep.  Galileo came up with some of the methods of modern science.  But
it took Newton/Leibnitz to come up with the math.  Much of what Kepler
did was tied up in astrological mysticism like the "music of the
spheres".  Newton was heavily in the occult, alchemy, and other weird
stuff, and actually spent more time on that than he did on real
science. But only after the Enlightenment set in was it possible for
modern science to develop.

>Experimentation leading to theories with predictive power.

The ancient Greeks did that.  The Ptolemaic epicycles were predictive.
But they were wrong.

>If this is "pre-dawn" to you,

Yep.

>then you're a fool.

Nope.  Just a little better versed in the history of the science of
that era than you seem to be (and I've been doing some reading in this
area before this thread came up).

>> Then I have no idea what your silly claim is.  Sunspot numbers are
>> irrelevant except for observing the cycles.
>
>Bizarre statement. The number of sunspots, which is strong correlated
>with the energy the Earth recieves

No, not "strongly".

>> >Peaks that vary over time with long trends are different. And cause
>> >changes in climate.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-bfly.gif
>>
>> That picture says nothing about climate.
>
>Maybe, if you look hard, you can see something other than the 11 year
>cycle.
>
>Try. Can you see some trend there, or is that beyond you?

I'm not interested in making up hypotheses that I'm not going to test.

>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
>>
>> I see an incompletely specified hypothesis
>> <The Milankovitch theory[1] of climate change is not perfectly worked
>> < out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the
>> < 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this
>> < scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon
>> < dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this
>> < discrepancy.
>>
>> In other words this is at the level of Aristotle epicycles.  The
>> predictions fail, so they keep adding variables on the assumption that
>> the theory is correct even though it fails to make validated
>> predictions.
>
>Detail an alternative with better retrodiction.

There isn't one.  But it isn't science yet.  Just wannabe science.

>Come up with an model that retrodicts the Vostok cores.

Not my field, and not my interest.  I am NOT required to come up with
a better theory than one which isn't done.

>I'm sure to you, distance from the Earth to the Sun has no impact on
>the Earth's climate,

I'm sure it does, but not much.

Summer in the Southern hemisphere isn't notably warmer than summer in
the Northern, even though one occurs at perihelion and one at
aphelion.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Lojban language www.lojban.org